Discounting the influence of future events is a key paradigm in economics and it is widely used in computer-science models, such as games, Markov decision processes (MDPs), reinforcement learning, and automata. While a single game or MDP may allow for several different discount factors, nondeterministic discounted-sum automata (NDAs) were only studied with respect to a single discount factor. It is known that every class of NDAs with an integer as the discount factor has good computational properties: It is closed under determinization and under the algebraic operations min, max, addition, and subtraction, and there are algorithms for its basic decision problems, such as automata equivalence and containment. Extending the integer discount factor to an arbitrary rational number, loses most of these good properties. We define and analyze nondeterministic discounted-sum automata in which each transition can have a different integral discount factor (integral NMDAs). We show that integral NMDAs with an arbitrary choice of discount factors are not closed under determinization and under algebraic operations and that their containment problem is undecidable. We then define and analyze a restricted class of integral NMDAs, which we call tidy NMDAs, in which the choice of discount factors depends on the prefix of the word read so far. Among their special cases are NMDAs that correlate discount factors to actions (alphabet letters) or to the elapsed time. We show that for every function $\theta$ that defines the choice of discount factors, the class of $\theta$-NMDAs enjoys all of the above good properties of NDAs with a single integral discount factor, as well as the same complexity of the required decision problems. Tidy NMDAs are also as expressive as deterministic integral NMDAs with an arbitrary choice of discount factors. Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2301.04086

Safety and liveness stand as fundamental concepts in formal languages, playing a key role in verification. The safety-liveness classification of boolean properties characterizes whether a given property can be falsified by observing a finite prefix of an infinite computation trace (always for safety, never for liveness). In the quantitative setting, properties are arbitrary functions from infinite words to partially-ordered domains. Extending this paradigm to the quantitative domain, where properties are arbitrary functions mapping infinite words to partially-ordered domains, we introduce and study the notions of quantitative safety and liveness. First, we formally define quantitative safety and liveness, and prove that our definitions induce conservative quantitative generalizations of both the safety-progress hierarchy and the safety-liveness decomposition of boolean properties. Consequently, like their boolean counterparts, quantitative properties can be min-decomposed into safety and liveness parts, or alternatively, max-decomposed into co-safety and co-liveness parts. We further establish a connection between quantitative safety and topological continuity and provide alternative characterizations of quantitative safety and liveness in terms of their boolean analogs. Second, we instantiate our framework with the specific classes of quantitative properties expressed by automata. These quantitative automata contain finitely many states and rational-valued transition weights, and their common value functions Inf, Sup, LimInf, LimSup, LimInfAvg, LimSupAvg, and DSum map infinite words into the totally-ordered domain of real numbers. For all common value functions, we provide a procedure for deciding whether a given automaton is safe or live, we show how to construct its safety closure, and we present a min-decomposition into safe and live automata.

An automaton is history-deterministic if its nondeterminism can be resolved on the fly, only using the prefix of the word read so far. This mild form of nondeterminism has attracted particular attention for its applications in synthesis problems. An automaton $A$ is guidable with respect to a class $C$ of automata if it can fairly simulate every automaton in $C$ whose language is contained in that of $A$. In other words, guidable automata are those for which inclusion and simulation coincide, making them particularly interesting for model-checking. We study the connection between these two notions, and specifically the question of when they coincide. For classes of automata on which they do, deciding guidability, an otherwise challenging decision problem, reduces to deciding history-determinism, a problem that is starting to be well-understood for many classes. We provide a selection of sufficient criteria for a class of automata to guarantee the coincidence of the notions, and use them to show that the notions coincide for the most common automata classes, among which are $ω$-regular automata and many infinite-state automata with safety and reachability acceptance conditions, including vector addition systems with states, one-counter nets, pushdown-, Parikh-, and timed-automata. We also demonstrate that history-determinism and guidability do not always coincide, for example, for the classes of timed automata with a fixed number of clocks.

A nondeterministic discounted-sum automaton (NDA) values a run by the discounted sum of the visited transition weights. That is, the weight in the i-th position of a run of a λ-NDA is divided by λi, for a fixed discount factor λ > 1. This allows to model systems in which the influence of current events is more significant than that of future ones, a key paradigm in economics and other disciplines.

Safety and liveness stand as fundamental concepts in formal languages, playing a key role in verification. The safety-liveness classification of boolean properties characterizes whether a given property can be falsified by observing a finite prefix of an infinite computation trace (always for safety, never for liveness). In the quantitative setting, properties are arbitrary functions from infinite words to partially-ordered domains. Extending this paradigm to the quantitative domain, where properties are arbitrary functions mapping infinite words to partially-ordered domains, we introduce and study the notions of quantitative safety and liveness. First, we formally define quantitative safety and liveness, and prove that our definitions induce conservative quantitative generalizations of both the safety-progress hierarchy and the safety-liveness decomposition of boolean properties. Consequently, like their boolean counterparts, quantitative properties can be min-decomposed into safety and liveness parts, or alternatively, max-decomposed into co-safety and co-liveness parts. We further establish a connection between quantitative safety and topological continuity and provide alternative characterizations of quantitative safety and liveness in terms of their boolean analogs. Second, we instantiate our framework with the specific classes of quantitative properties expressed by automata. These quantitative automata contain finitely many states and rational-valued transition weights, and their common value functions Inf, Sup, LimInf, LimSup, LimInfAvg, LimSupAvg, and DSum map infinite words into the totally-ordered domain of real numbers. For all common value functions, we provide a procedure for deciding whether a given automaton is safe or live, we show how to construct its safety closure, and we present a min-decomposition into safe and live automata.

Abstract We look into the problems of comparing nondeterministic discounted-sum automata on finite and infinite words. That is, the problems of checking for automata $${\mathcal {A}}$$ A and $${\mathcal {B}}$$ B whether or not it holds that for all words w , $${\mathcal {A}}(w)={\mathcal {B}}(w), {\mathcal {A}}(w)\le {\mathcal {B}}(w)$$ A ( w ) = B ( w ) , A ( w ) ≤ B ( w ) , or $${\mathcal {A}}(w)<{\mathcal {B}}(w)$$ A ( w ) < B ( w ) . These problems are known to be decidable when both automata have the same single integral discount factor, while decidability is open in all other settings: when the single discount factor is a non-integral rational; when each automaton can have multiple discount factors; and even when each has a single integral discount factor, but the two are different. We show that it is undecidable to compare discounted-sum automata with multiple discount factors, even if all are integrals, while it is decidable to compare them if each has a single, possibly different, integral discount factor. To this end, we also provide algorithms to check for given nondeterministic automaton $${\mathcal {N}}$$ N and deterministic automaton $${\mathcal {D}}$$ D , each with a single, possibly different, rational discount factor, whether or not $${\mathcal {N}}(w) = {\mathcal {D}}(w)$$ N ( w ) = D ( w ) , $${\mathcal {N}}(w) \ge {\mathcal {D}}(w)$$ N ( w ) ≥ D ( w ) , or $${\mathcal {N}}(w) > {\mathcal {D}}(w)$$ N ( w ) > D ( w ) for all words w .

A nondeterministic automaton is history-deterministic if its nondeterminism can be resolved by only considering the prefix of the word read so far. Due to their good compositional properties, history-deterministic automata are useful in solving games and synthesis problems. Deciding whether a given nondeterministic automaton is history-deterministic (the HDness problem) is generally a difficult task, which can involve an exponential procedure, or even be undecidable, as is the case for example with pushdown automata. Token games provide a PTime solution to the HDness problem of B\"uchi and coB\"uchi automata, and it is conjectured that 2-token games characterise HDness for all $\omega$-regular automata. We extend token games to the quantitative setting and analyse their potential to help deciding HDness of quantitative automata. In particular, we show that 1-token games characterise HDness for all quantitative (and Boolean) automata on finite words, as well as discounted-sum (DSum), Inf and Reachability automata on infinite words, and that 2-token games characterise HDness of LimInf and LimSup automata, as well as Sup automata on infinite words. Using these characterisations, we provide solutions to the HDness problem of Safety, Reachability, Inf and Sup automata on finite and infinite words in PTime, of DSum automata on finite and infinite words in NP$\cap$co-NP, of LimSup automata in quasipolynomial time, and of LimInf automata in exponential time, where the latter two are only polynomial for automata with a logarithmic number of weights.

There is a challenging trade-off between deterministic and nondeterministic automata, where the former suit various applications better, however at the cost of being exponentially larger or even less expressive. This gave birth to many notions in between determinism and nondeterminism, aiming at enjoying, sometimes, the best of both worlds. Some of the notions are yes/no ones, for example initial nondeterminism (restricting nondeterminism to allowing several initial states), and some provide a measure of nondeterminism, for example the ambiguity level. We analyze the possible generalization of such notions from Boolean to quantitative automata, and suggest that it depends on the following key characteristics of the considered notion 𝖭 - whether it is syntactic or semantic, and if semantic, whether it is word-based or language-based. A syntactic notion, such as initial nondeterminism, applies as is to a quantitative automaton A, namely 𝖭(A). A word-based semantic notion, such as unambiguity, applies as is to a Boolean automaton t-A that is derived from A by accompanying it with some threshold value t ∈ ℝ, namely 𝖭(t-A). A language-based notion, such as history determinism, also applies as is to t-A, while in addition, it naturally generalizes into two different notions with respect to A itself, by either: i) taking the supremum of 𝖭(t-A) over all thresholds t, denoted by Threshold-𝖭(A); or ii) generalizing the basis of the notion from a language to a function, denoted simply by 𝖭(A). While in general 𝖭(A) ⇒ Threshold-𝖭(A) ⇒ 𝖭(t-A), we have for some notions 𝖭(A) ≡ Threshold-𝖭(A), and for some not. (For measure notions, ⇒ stands for ≥ with respect to the nondeterminism level.) We classify numerous notions known in the Boolean setting according to their characterization above, generalize them to the quantitative setting and look into relations between them. The generalized notions open new research directions with respect to quantitative automata, and provide insights on the original notions with respect to Boolean automata.

Abstract A nondeterministic automaton is history-deterministic if its nondeterminism can be resolved by only considering the prefix of the word read so far. Due to their good compositional properties, history-deterministic automata are useful in solving games and synthesis problems. Deciding whether a given nondeterministic automaton is history-deterministic (the problem) is generally a difficult task, which might involve an exponential procedure, or even be undecidable, for example for pushdown automata.Token gamesprovide aPTimesolution to the problem of Büchi and coBüchi automata, and it is conjectured that 2-token games characterise for all $$\omega $$ ω -regular automata. We extend token games to the quantitative setting and analyze their potential to help deciding for quantitative automata. In particular, we show that 1-token games characterise for all quantitative (and Boolean) automata on finite words, as well as discounted-sum ( $${\mathsf {DSum}}$$ DSum ) automata on infinite words, and that 2-token games characterise of $${\mathsf {LimInf}}$$ LimInf and $${\mathsf {LimSup}}$$ LimSup automata. Using these characterisations, we provide solutions to the problem of $${\mathsf {Inf}}$$ Inf and $${\mathsf {Sup}}$$ Sup automata on finite words inPTime, for $${\mathsf {DSum}}$$ DSum automata on finite and infinite words inNP $$\cap $$ ∩ co-NP, for $${\mathsf {LimSup}}$$ LimSup automata in quasipolynomial time, and for $${\mathsf {LimInf}}$$ LimInf automata in exponential time, where the latter two are only polynomial for automata with a logarithmic number of weights.

Abstract While the complexity of translating future linear temporal logic (LTL) into automata on infinite words is well-understood, the size increase involved in turning automata back to LTL is not. In particular, there is no known elementary bound on the complexity of translating deterministic $$\omega $$ ω -regular automata to LTL. Our first contribution consists of tight bounds for LTL over a unary alphabet: alternating, nondeterministic and deterministic automata can be exactly exponentially, quadratically and linearly more succinct, respectively, than any equivalent LTL formula. Our main contribution consists of a translation of general counter-free deterministic $$\omega $$ ω -regular automata into LTL formulas of double exponential temporal-nesting depth and triple exponential length, using an intermediate Krohn-Rhodes cascade decomposition of the automaton. To our knowledge, this is the first elementary bound on this translation. Furthermore, our translation preserves the acceptance condition of the automaton in the sense that it turns a looping, weak, Büchi, coBüchi or Muller automaton into a formula that belongs to the matching class of the syntactic future hierarchy. In particular, it can be used to translate an LTL formula recognising a safety language to a formula belonging to the safety fragment of LTL (over both finite and infinite words).

While causal consistency is one of the most fundamental consistency models weaker than sequential consistency, the decidability of safety verification for (finite-state) concurrent programs running under causally consistent shared memories is still unclear. In this article, we establish the decidability of this problem for two standard and well-studied variants of causal consistency. To do so, for each variant, we develop an equivalent “lossy” operational semantics, whose states track possible futures, rather than more standard semantics that record the history of the execution. We show that these semantics constitute well-structured transition systems, thus enabling decidable verification. Based on a key observation, which we call the “shared-memory causality principle,” the two novel semantics may also be of independent use in the investigation of weakly consistent models and their verification. Interestingly, our results are in contrast to the undecidability of this problem under the Release/Acquire fragment of the C/C++11 memory model, which forms another variant of causally consistent memory that, in terms of allowed outcomes, lies strictly between the two models studied here. Nevertheless, we show that all these three variants coincide for write/write-race-free programs, which implies the decidability of verification for such programs under Release/Acquire.

Discounting the influence of future events is a key paradigm in economics and it is widely used in computer-science models, such as games, Markov decision processes (MDPs), reinforcement learning, and automata. While a single game or MDP may allow for several different discount factors, discounted-sum automata (NDAs) were only studied with respect to a single discount factor. For every integer λ ∈ ℕ⧵{0,1}, as opposed to every λ ∈ ℚ⧵ℕ, the class of NDAs with discount factor λ (λ-NDAs) has good computational properties: it is closed under determinization and under the algebraic operations min, max, addition, and subtraction, and there are algorithms for its basic decision problems, such as automata equivalence and containment. We define and analyze discounted-sum automata in which each transition can have a different integral discount factor (integral NMDAs). We show that integral NMDAs with an arbitrary choice of discount factors are not closed under determinization and under algebraic operations. We then define and analyze a restricted class of integral NMDAs, which we call tidy NMDAs, in which the choice of discount factors depends on the prefix of the word read so far. Tidy NMDAs are as expressive as deterministic integral NMDAs with an arbitrary choice of discount factors, and some of their special cases are NMDAs in which the discount factor depends on the action (alphabet letter) or on the elapsed time. We show that for every function θ that defines the choice of discount factors, the class of θ-NMDAs enjoys all of the above good properties of integral NDAs, as well as the same complexities of the required decision problems. To this end, we also improve the previously known complexities of the decision problems of integral NDAs, and present tight bounds on the size blow-up involved in algebraic operations on them. All our results hold equally for automata on finite words and for automata on infinite words.

Automata models between determinism and nondeterminism/alternations can retain some of the algorithmic properties of deterministic automata while enjoying some of the expressiveness and succinctness of nondeterminism. We study three closely related such models - history determinism, good for gameness and determinisability by pruning - on quantitative automata. While in the Boolean setting, history determinism and good for gameness coincide, we show that this is no longer the case in the quantitative setting: good for gameness is broader than history determinism, and coincides with a relaxed version of it, defined with respect to thresholds. We further identify criteria in which history determinism, which is generally broader than determinisability by pruning, coincides with it, which we then apply to typical quantitative automata types. As a key application of good for games and history deterministic automata is synthesis, we clarify the relationship between the two notions and various quantitative synthesis problems. We show that good-for-games automata are central for "global" (classical) synthesis, while "local" (good-enough) synthesis reduces to deciding whether a nondeterministic automaton is history deterministic.

We study the language universality problem for One-Counter Nets, also known as 1-dimensional Vector Addition Systems with States (1-VASS), parameterized either with an initial counter value, or with an upper bound on the allowed counter value during runs. The language accepted by an OCN (defined by reaching a final control state) is monotone in both parameters. This yields two natural questions: 1) Does there exist an initial counter value that makes the language universal? 2) Does there exist a sufficiently high ceiling so that the bounded language is universal? Although the ordinary universality problem is decidable (and Ackermann-complete) and these parameterized problems seem to reduce to checking basic structural properties of the underlying automaton, we show that in fact both problems are undecidable. We also look into the complexities of the problems for several decidable subclasses, namely for unambiguous, and deterministic systems, and for those over a single-letter alphabet.

We study alternating parity good-for-games (GFG) automata, i.e., alternating parity automata where both conjunctive and disjunctive choices can be resolved in an online manner, without knowledge of the suffix of the input word still to be read. We show that they can be exponentially more succinct than both their nondeterministic and universal counterparts. Furthermore, we present a single exponential determinisation procedure and an Exptime upper bound to the problem of recognising whether an alternating automaton is GFG. We also study the complexity of deciding "half-GFGness", a property specific to alternating automata that only requires nondeterministic choices to be resolved in an online manner. We show that this problem is PSpace-hard already for alternating automata on finite words.

Causal consistency is one of the most fundamental and widely used consistency models weaker than sequential consistency. In this paper, we study the verification of safety properties for finite-state concurrent programs running under a causally consistent shared memory model. We establish the decidability of this problem for a standard model of causal consistency (called also "Causal Convergence" and "Strong-Release-Acquire"). Our proof proceeds by developing an alternative operational semantics, based on the notion of a thread potential, that is equivalent to the existing declarative semantics and constitutes a well-structured transition system. In particular, our result allows for the verification of a large family of programs in the Release/Acquire fragment of C/C++11 (RA). Indeed, while verification under RA was recently shown to be undecidable for general programs, since RA coincides with the model we study here for write/write-race-free programs, the decidability of verification under RA for this widely used class of programs follows from our result. The novel operational semantics may also be of independent use in the investigation of weakly consistent shared memory models and their verification.

The complexity of parity games is a long standing open problem that saw a major breakthrough in 2017 when two quasi-polynomial algorithms were published. This article presents a third, independent approach to solving parity games in quasi-polynomial time, based on the notion of register game, a parameterised variant of a parity game. The analysis of register games leads to a quasi-polynomial algorithm for parity games, a polynomial algorithm for restricted classes of parity games and a novel measure of complexity, the register index, which aims to capture the combined complexity of the priority assignement and the underlying game graph. We further present a translation of alternating parity word automata into alternating weak automata with only a quasi-polynomial increase in size, based on register games; this improves on the previous exponential translation. We also use register games to investigate the parity index hierarchy: while for words the index hierarchy of alternating parity automata collapses to the weak level, and for trees it is strict, for structures between trees and words, it collapses logarithmically, in the sense that any parity tree automaton of size n is equivalent, on these particular classes of structures, to an automaton with a number of priorities logarithmic in n.

A word automaton recognizing a language $L$ is good for games (GFG) if its composition with any game with winning condition $L$ preserves the game's winner. While all deterministic automata are GFG, some nondeterministic automata are not. There are various other properties that are used in the literature for defining that a nondeterministic automaton is GFG, including "history-deterministic", "compliant with some letter game", "good for trees", and "good for composition with other automata". The equivalence of these properties has not been formally shown. We generalize all of these definitions to alternating automata and show their equivalence. We further show that alternating GFG automata are as expressive as deterministic automata with the same acceptance conditions and indices. We then show that alternating GFG automata over finite words, and weak automata over infinite words, are not more succinct than deterministic automata, and that determinizing Büchi and co-Büchi alternating GFG automata involves a $2^{Θ(n)}$ state blow-up. We leave open the question of whether alternating GFG automata of stronger acceptance conditions allow for doubly-exponential succinctness compared to deterministic automata.

Different types of automata over words and trees offer different trade-offs between expressivity, conciseness, and the complexity of decision procedures. Alternating weak automata enjoy simple algorithms for emptiness and membership checks, which makes transformations into automata of this type particularly interesting. For instance, an algorithm for solving two-player infinite games can be viewed as a special case of such a transformation. However, our understanding of the worst-case size blow-up that these transformations can incur is rather poor. This paper establishes two new results, one on word automata and one on tree automata. We show that: - Alternating parity word automata can be turned into alternating weak automata of quasi-polynomial (rather than exponential) size. - Universal co-Büchi tree automata, a special case of alternating parity tree automata, can be exponentially more concise than alternating weak automata. Along the way, we present a family of game languages, strict for the levels of the weak hierarchy of tree automata, which corresponds to a weak version of the canonical game languages known to be strict for the Mostowski - Rabin index hierarchy.

Computation Tree Logic (CTL) is widely used in formal verification, however, unlike linear temporal logic (LTL), its connection to automata over words and trees is not yet fully understood. Moreover, the long sought connection between LTL and CTL is still missing; It is not known whether their common fragment is decidable, and there are very limited necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for checking whether an LTL formula is definable in CTL.

There are various types of automata on infinite words, differing in their acceptance conditions. The most classic ones are weak, Bu ̈chi, co-Bu ̈chi, parity, Rabin, Streett, and Muller. This is opposed to the case of automata on finite words, in which there is only one standard type. The natural question is why—Why not a single type? Why these particular types? Shall we further look into additional types? For answering these questions, we clarify the succinctness of the different automata types and the size blowup involved in performing boolean operations on them. To this end, we show that unifying or intersecting deterministic automata of the classic ω-regular- complete types, namely parity, Rabin, Streett, and Muller, involves an exponential size blowup. We argue that there are good reasons for the classic types, mainly in the case of nondeterministic and alternating automata. They admit good size and complexity bounds with respect to succinctness, boolean operations, and decision procedures, and they are closely connected to various logics. Yet, we also argue that there is place for additional types, especially in the case of deterministic automata. In particular, generalized-Rabin, which was recently introduced, as well as a disjunction of Streett conditions, which we call hyper-Rabin, where the latter further generalizes the former, are interesting to consider. They may be exponentially more succinct than the classic types, they allow for union and intersection with only a quadratic size blowup, and their nonemptiness can be checked in polynomial time.

Families of DFAs (FDFAs) provide an alternative formalism for recognizing $\omega$-regular languages. The motivation for introducing them was a desired correlation between the automaton states and right congruence relations, in a manner similar to the Myhill-Nerode theorem for regular languages. This correlation is beneficial for learning algorithms, and indeed it was recently shown that $\omega$-regular languages can be learned from membership and equivalence queries, using FDFAs as the acceptors. In this paper, we look into the question of how suitable FDFAs are for defining omega-regular languages. Specifically, we look into the complexity of performing Boolean operations, such as complementation and intersection, on FDFAs, the complexity of solving decision problems, such as emptiness and language containment, and the succinctness of FDFAs compared to standard deterministic and nondeterministic $\omega$-automata. We show that FDFAs enjoy the benefits of deterministic automata with respect to Boolean operations and decision problems. Namely, they can all be performed in nondeterministic logarithmic space. We provide polynomial translations of deterministic B\"uchi and co-B\"uchi automata to FDFAs and of FDFAs to nondeterministic B\"uchi automata (NBAs). We show that translation of an NBA to an FDFA may involve an exponential blowup. Last, we show that FDFAs are more succinct than deterministic parity automata (DPAs) in the sense that translating a DPA to an FDFA can always be done with only a polynomial increase, yet the other direction involves an inevitable exponential blowup in the worst case.

There are several types of finite automata on infinite words, differing in their acceptance conditions. As each type has its own advantages, there is an extensive research on the size blowup involved in translating one automaton type to another. Of special interest is the Muller type, providing the most detailed acceptance condition. It turns out that there is inconsistency and incompleteness in the literature results regarding the translations to and from Muller automata. Considering the automaton size, some results take into account, in addition to the number of states, the alphabet length and the number of transitions while ignoring the length of the acceptance condition, whereas other results consider the length of the acceptance condition while ignoring the two other parameters. We establish a full picture of the translations to and from Muller automata, enhancing known results and adding new ones. Overall, Muller automata can be considered less succinct than parity, Rabin, and Streett automata: translating nondeterministic Muller automata to the other nondeterministic types involves a polynomial size blowup, while the other way round is exponential; translating between the deterministic versions is exponential in both directions; and translating nondeterministic automata of all types to deterministic Muller automata is doubly exponential, as opposed to a single exponent in the translations to the other deterministic types.

The Rabin and Streett acceptance conditions are dual. Accordingly, deterministic Rabin and Streett automata are dual. Yet, when adding nondeterminsim, the picture changes dramatically. In fact, the state blowup involved in translations between Rabin and Streett automata is a longstanding open problem, having an exponential gap between the known lower and upper bounds. We resolve the problem, showing that the translation of Streett to Rabin automata involves a state blowup in $\Theta(n^2)$, whereas in the other direction, the translations of both deterministic and nondeterministic Rabin automata to nondeterministic Streett automata involve a state blowup in $2^{\Theta(n)}$. Analyzing this substantial difference between the two directions, we get to the conclusion that when studying translations between automata, one should not only consider the state blowup, but also the \emph{size} blowup, where the latter takes into account all of the automaton elements. More precisely, the size of an automaton is defined to be the maximum of the alphabet length, the number of states, the number of transitions, and the acceptance condition length (index). Indeed, size-wise, the results are opposite. That is, the translation of Rabin to Streett involves a size blowup in $\Theta(n^2)$ and of Streett to Rabin in $2^{\Theta(n)}$. The core difference between state blowup and size blowup stems from the tradeoff between the index and the number of states. (Recall that the index of Rabin and Streett automata might be exponential in the number of states.) We continue with resolving the open problem of translating deterministic Rabin and Streett automata to the weaker types of deterministic co-B\"uchi and B\"uchi automata, respectively. We show that the state blowup involved in these translations, when possible, is in $2^{\Theta(n)}$, whereas the size blowup is in $\Theta(n^2)$.

In GFG automata, it is possible to resolve nondeterminism in a way that only depends on the past and still accepts all the words in the language. The motivation for GFG automata comes from their adequacy for games and synthesis, wherein general nondeterminism is inappropriate. We continue the ongoing effort of studying the power of nondeterminism in GFG automata. Initial indications have hinted that every GFG automaton embodies a deterministic one. Today we know that this is not the case, and in fact GFG automata may be exponentially more succinct than deterministic ones. We focus on the typeness question, namely the question of whether a GFG automaton with a certain acceptance condition has an equivalent GFG automaton with a weaker acceptance condition on the same structure. Beyond the theoretical interest in studying typeness, its existence implies efficient translations among different acceptance conditions. This practical issue is of special interest in the context of games, where the Buchi and co-Buchi conditions admit memoryless strategies for both players. Typeness is known to hold for deterministic automata and not to hold for general nondeterministic automata. We show that GFG automata enjoy the benefits of typeness, similarly to the case of deterministic automata. In particular, when Rabin or Streett GFG automata have equivalent Buchi or co-Buchi GFG automata, respectively, then such equivalent automata can be defined on a substructure of the original automata. Using our typeness results, we further study the place of GFG automata in between deterministic and nondeterministic ones. Specifically, considering automata complementation, we show that GFG automata lean toward nondeterministic ones, admitting an exponential state blow-up in the complementation of a Streett automaton into a Rabin automaton, as opposed to the constant blow-up in the deterministic case.

Families of DFAs (FDFAs) provide an alternative formalism for recognizing omega-regular languages. The motivation for introducing them was a desired correlation between the automaton states and right congruence relations, in a manner similar to the Myhill-Nerode theorem for regular languages. This correlation is beneficial for learning algorithms, and indeed it was recently shown that omega-regular languages can be learned from membership and equivalence queries, using FDFAs as the acceptors. In this paper, we look into the question of how suitable FDFAs are for defining omega-regular languages. Specifically, we look into the complexity of performing Boolean operations, such as complementation and intersection, on FDFAs, the complexity of solving decision problems, such as emptiness and language containment, and the succinctness of FDFAs compared to standard deterministic and nondeterministic omega-automata. We show that FDFAs enjoy the benefits of deterministic automata with respect to Boolean operations and decision problems. Namely, they can all be performed in nondeterministic logarithmic space. We provide polynomial translations of deterministic Buchi and coBuchi automata to FDFAs and of FDFAs to nondeterministic Buchi automata (NBAs). We show that translation of an NBA to an FDFA may involve an exponential blowup. Last, we show that FDFAs are more succinct than deterministic parity automata (DPAs) in the sense that translating a DPA to an FDFA can always be done with only a polynomial increase, yet the other direction involves an inevitable exponential blowup in the worst case.

In recent years, there has been a growing need and interest in formally reasoning about the quality of software and hardware systems. As opposed to traditional verification, in which one considers the question of whether a system satisfies a given specification or not, reasoning about quality addresses the question of how well the system satisfies the specification. We distinguish between two approaches to specifying quality. The first, propositional quality , extends the specification formalism with propositional quality operators, which prioritize and weight different satisfaction possibilities. The second, temporal quality , refines the “eventually” operators of the specification formalism with discounting operators, whose semantics takes into an account the delay incurred in their satisfaction. In this article, we introduce two quantitative extensions of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), one by propositional quality operators and one by discounting operators. In both logics, the satisfaction value of a specification is a number in [0, 1], which describes the quality of the satisfaction. We demonstrate the usefulness of both extensions and study the decidability and complexity of the decision and search problems for them as well as for extensions of LTL that combine both types of operators.

The target discounted-sum problem is the following: Given a rational discount factor 0 < λ < 1 and three rational values a, b, and t, does there exist a finite or an infinite sequence ω ∈(a, b)* or ω ∈(a, b)ω, such that Σ|ω| i=0 ω(i)λi equals t? The problem turns out to relate to many fields of mathematics and computer science, and its decidability question is surprisingly hard to solve. We solve the finite version of the problem, and show the hardness of the infinite version, linking it to various areas and open problems in mathematics and computer science: β-expansions, discounted-sum automata, piecewise affine maps, and generalizations of the Cantor set. We provide some partial results to the infinite version, among which are solutions to its restriction to eventually-periodic sequences and to the cases that λ λ 1/2 or λ = 1/n, for every n ∈ N. We use our results for solving some open problems on discounted-sum automata, among which are the exact-value problem for nondeterministic automata over finite words and the universality and inclusion problems for functional automata.

The analysis of the energy consumption of software is an important goal for quantitative formal methods. Current methods, using weighted transition systems or energy games, model the energy source as an ideal resource whose status is characterized by one number, namely the amount of remaining energy. Real batteries, however, exhibit behaviors that can deviate substantially from an ideal energy resource. Based on a discretization of a standard continuous battery model, we introduce {\em battery transition systems}. In this model, a battery is viewed as consisting of two parts -- the available-charge tank and the bound-charge tank. Any charge or discharge is applied to the available-charge tank. Over time, the energy from each tank diffuses to the other tank.

Recently, there has been an effort to add quantitative objectives to formal verification and synthesis. We introduce and investigate the extension of temporal logics with quantitative atomic assertions. At the heart of quantitative objectives lies the accumulation of values along a computation. It is often the accumulated sum, as with energy objectives, or the accumulated average, as with mean-payoff objectives. We investigate the extension of temporal logics with theprefix-accumulation assertionsSum(v) ≥cand Avg(v) ≥c, wherevis a numeric (or Boolean) variable of the system,cis a constant rational number, and Sum(v) and Avg(v) denote the accumulated sum and average of the values ofvfrom the beginning of the computation up to the current point in time. We also allow thepath-accumulation assertionsLimInfAvg(v)≥cand LimSupAvg(v)≥c, referring to the average value along an entire infinite computation. We study the border of decidability for such quantitative extensions of various temporal logics. In particular, we show that extending the fragment of CTL that has only the EX, EF, AX, and AG temporal modalities with both prefix-accumulation assertions, or extending LTL with both path-accumulation assertions, results in temporal logics whose model-checking problem is decidable. Moreover, the prefix-accumulation assertions may be generalized with “controlled accumulation,” allowing, for example, to specify constraints on the average waiting time between a request and a grant. On the negative side, we show that this branching-time logic is, in a sense, the maximal logic with one or both of the prefix-accumulation assertions that permits a decidable model-checking procedure. Extending a temporal logic that has the EG or EU modalities, such as CTL or LTL, makes the problem undecidable.

Quantitative automata are nondeterministic finite automata with edge weights. They value a run by some function from the sequence of visited weights to the reals, and value a word by its minimal/maximal run. They generalize boolean automata, and have gained much attention in recent years. Unfortunately, important automaton classes, such as sum, discounted-sum, and limit-average automata, cannot be determinized. Yet, the quantitative setting provides the potential of approximate determinization. We define approximate determinization with respect to a distance function, and investigate this potential. We show that sum automata cannot be determinized approximately with respect to any distance function. However, restricting to nonnegative weights allows for approximate determinization with respect to some distance functions. Discounted-sum automata allow for approximate determinization, as the influence of a word's suffix is decaying. However, the naive approach, of unfolding the automaton computations up to a sufficient level, is shown to be doubly exponential in the discount factor. We provide an alternative construction that is singly exponential in the discount factor, in the precision, and in the number of states. We prove matching lower bounds, showing exponential dependency on each of these three parameters. Average and limit-average automata are shown to prohibit approximate determinization with respect to any distance function, and this is the case even for two weights, 0 and 1.

We solve the longstanding open problems of the blow-up involved in the translations, when possible, of a nondeterministic Büchi word automaton (NBW) to a nondeterministic co-Büchi word automaton (NCW) and to a deterministic co-Büchi word automaton (DCW). For the NBW to NCW translation, the currently known upper bound is 2 O(n log n) and the lower bound is 1.5 n . We improve the upper bound to n 2 n and describe a matching lower bound of 2 Ω(n) . For the NBW to DCW translation, the currently known upper bound is 2 O(n log n) . We improve it to 2 O(n) , which is asymptotically tight. Both of our upper-bound constructions are based on a simple subset construction, do not involve intermediate automata with richer acceptance conditions, and can be implemented symbolically. We continue and solve the open problems of translating nondeterministic Streett, Rabin, Muller, and parity word automata to NCW and to DCW. Going via an intermediate NBW is not optimal and we describe direct, simple, and asymptotically tight constructions, involving a 2 Θ(n) blow-up. The constructions are variants of the subset construction, providing a unified approach for translating all common classes of automata to NCW and DCW. Beyond the theoretical importance of the results, we point to numerous applications of the new constructions. In particular, they imply a simple subset-construction based translation, when possible, of LTL to deterministic Büchi word automata.

There is recently a significant effort to add quantitative objectives to formal verification and synthesis. We introduce and investigate the extension of temporal logics with quantitative atomic assertions, aiming for a general and flexible framework for quantitative-oriented specifications. In the heart of quantitative objectives lies the accumulation of values along a computation. It is either the accumulated summation, as with the energy objectives, or the accumulated average, as with the mean-payoff objectives. We investigate the extension of temporal logics with the prefix-accumulation assertions Sum(ν) ≥ c and Avg(ν) ≥ c, where v is a numeric variable of the system, c is a constant rational number, and Sum(ν) and Avg(ν) denote the accumulated sum and average of the values of ν from the beginning of the computation up to the current point of time. We also allow the path-accumulation assertions LimlnfAvg(ν) ≥ c and LimSupAvg(ν) ≥ c, referring to the average value along an entire computation. We study the border of decidability for extensions of various temporal logics. In particular, we show that extending the fragment of CTL that has only the EX, EF, AX, and AG temporal modalities by prefix-accumulation assertions and extending LTL with path-accumulation assertions, result in temporal logics whose model-checking problem is decidable. The extended logics allow to significantly extend the currently known energy and mean-payoff objectives. Moreover, the prefix-accumulation assertions may be refined with "controlled-accumulation", allowing, for example, to specify constraints on the average waiting time between a request and a grant. On the negative side, we show that the fragment we point to is, in a sense, the maximal logic whose extension with prefix-accumulation assertions permits a decidable model-checking procedure. Extending a temporal logic that has the EG or EU modalities, and in particular CTL and LTL, makes the problem undecidable.

The parity acceptance condition for $omega$-regular languages is a special case of the Rabin and Streett acceptance conditions. While the parity acceptance condition is as expressive as the richer conditions, in both the deterministic and nondeterministic settings, Rabin and Streett automata are more succinct, and their translation to parity automata may blow-up the state space. The appealing properties of the parity condition, mainly the fact it is dualizable and allows for memoryless strategies, make such a translation useful in various decision procedures. In this paper we study languages that are recognizable by an automaton on top of which one can define both a Rabin and a Streett condition for the language. We show that if the underlying automaton is deterministic, then we can define on top of it also a parity condition for the language. We also show that this relation does not hold in the nondeterministic setting. Finally, we use the construction of the parity condition in the deterministic case in order to solve the problem of deciding whether a given Rabin or Streett automaton has an equivalent parity automaton on the same structure, and show that it is PTIME-complete in the deterministic setting and is PSPACE-complete in the nondeterministic setting.

We solve the longstanding open problems of the blowup involved in the translations (when possible) of a nondeterministic Buchi word automaton (NBW) to a nondeterministic co-Buchi word automaton (NCW) and to a deterministic co-Buchi word automaton (DCW). For the NBW to NCW translation, the currently known upper bound is 2O(nlogn)and the lower bound is 1.5n. We improve the upper bound to n2nand describe a matching lower bound of 2Omega(n). For the NBW to DCW translation, the currently known upper bound is 2O(mlogn). We improve it to 2O(n), which is asymptotically tight. Both of our upper-bound constructions are based on a simple subset construction, do not involve intermediate automata with richer acceptance conditions, and can be implemented symbolically. We point to numerous applications of the new constructions. In particular, they imply a simple subset-construction based translation (when possible) of LTL to deterministic Buchi word automata.